Print PDF

You searched for: “View All”

Showing 50 - 60 of 254 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>


Finnegan helped Nikon Inc. in a design patent and trade dress infringement suit, settling the suit and limiting Nikon's involvement, before engaging in costly discovery. In this case involving scope mounts for a rifle, Finnegan's comprehensive mediation brief established that our client did not infringe, and a favorable settlement followed.

Finnegan represented Axcelis Technologies against Varian Semiconductor Equipment Associates Inc. in a patent infringement case in the District of Massachusetts. Finnegan client Axcelis invalidated many of Varian’s patent claims with an early summary judgment motion that was granted by the court. Based on the judge’s interpretation of the remaining claims, Axcelis filed a second summary judgment motion for non-infringement. The case settled soon afterwards.

Judge Leonard Davis of the Eastern District of Texas issued an order granting judgment in FedEx’s favor and invalidating claims of a patent asserted by BarTex Research, LLC.  BarTex alleged that FedEx’s shipping labels infringed its patent related to bar codes.  FedEx won a favorable claim construction ruling by Magistrate Judge John Love that was later adopted by Judge Davis.  Thereafter BarTex conceded that the asserted claims were invalid in view of the claim construction.  While FedEx’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity was pending before Judge Davis, BarTex requested that Judge Davis issue an order granting judgment in favor of FedEx on the invalidity grounds raised in FedEx’s summary judgment motion.  The judgment in favor of FedEx was upheld on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  Finnegan also represents FedEx Corporation in an inter partes reexamination of the same BarTex patent.  Although the reexamination has not yet concluded, the Patent Office has rejected all claims of BarTex’s patent.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court judgment in favor of firm client X/Open Company Limited, a non-profit computer-industry consortium responsible for setting and managing the specifications for UNIX-based products. The decision caps a decade-long dispute which began as an administrative proceeding at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and later escalated into a federal court lawsuit when the plaintiff Wayne Gray alleged violations of federal and state RICO statutes, the Florida Communications Fraud Act, and the Lanham Act. The crux of plaintiff’s claim was that X/Open fraudulently asserted ownership in the UNIX mark against Gray in the earlier administrative action and then “conspired” with co-defendants Novell, Inc. and The SCO Group, Inc. to conceal the true ownership of that mark. The lower court had granted summary judgment in favor of X/Open, finding that various prior agreements and dealings between X/Open and the co-defendants indisputably established that X/Open owned the UNIX mark. The appeals court panel unequivocally affirmed, holding that Gray was simply “mistaken” about the legal effect of each agreement at issue. Because X/Open owned the UNIX mark and had lawfully asserted its rights in that mark against Gray, the Court held that all of Gray’s claims must fail.

In an important victory for firm client, Eli Lilly and Company, the Southern District of Indiana rejected claims by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. alleging that all of Lilly’s patents covering Lilly’s blockbuster drug for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis, Evista®, are invalid.  The court granted a permanent injunction preventing Teva from marketing its generic version of Evista® before the expiration of four of Lilly’s patents covering Evista®, the last of which expires in 2014.  Teva appealed the decision, and in September 2010, the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of Lilly, affirming the validity of Lilly’s patents for Evista®. Chief Judge Rader, writing for a unanimous panel, held that there was no evidence that "would teach, suggest or motivate or supply any common sense reason" for a person to arrive at Lilly’s invention.  The Federal Circuit further affirmed that the patents were enabled, observing that the initiation of a human clinical trial presumptively establishes the credibility of the asserted utility.

Finnegan successfully overturned a ruling against two of Bridgestone’s top-selling tire brands POTENZA and TURANZA. Bridgestone appealed a TTAB decision dismissing its opposition against Federal Corporation’s application to register the mark MILANZA for tires. In that decision, the TTAB refused to find Bridgestone’s POTENZA and TURANZA marks commercially strong because they frequently appear with the BRIDGESTONE house mark. On appeal, the Federal Circuit issued a unanimous precedential decision reversing the TTAB and finding that MILANZA is likely to be confused with POTENZA and TURANZA based on, among other things, the independent strength achieved by the POTENZA and TURANZA marks through massive sales and advertising and the similarities between POTENZA, TURANZA, and MILANZA. The Federal Circuit also held that the simultaneous use of BRIDGESTONE with POTENZA and TURANZA does not denigrate the fame and strength of those product marks.

Finnegan handles ATP’s worldwide trademark portfolio and ensures that its marks and logos are properly protected in the various jurisdictions where its tournaments are hosted, publicized, and broadcasted. We also handle ATP’s worldwide enforcement efforts and have opposed trademark applications and uses of ATP-formative marks around the world. Recently, we filed a U.S. opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) against an application for the mark ATPI for entertainment and travel services (including those related to sports). We have also handled “ambush advertising” issues for ATP, including during the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals in London.

We provide in-depth patent prosecution and counseling services for one of the world's leading solar companies. Our service includes preparing patent applications directed to novel silicon materials and processing technologies, specifically geared toward photovoltaic applications.

We provide in-depth patent prosecution and counseling services for one of the world's leading information management companies. Our service includes preparing patent applications directed to novel methods and systems for storing, protecting, and managing information with a particular focus on records management and data protection and recovery. In addition, we have provided due diligence for our client’s mergers and acquisitions, to assist it in achieving its strategic growth goals.

The firm provides Phillips 66 in-depth patent prosecution and counseling services, including filing applications, and reviewing and responding to office actions and observations filed by third parties at the European Patent Office. Formerly part of ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66 produces natural gas liquids and petrochemicals.


Showing 50 - 60 of 254 results. View All

Sort By: Title | Date

Pages: << < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >>